1) Didn't want the Berlin wall to fall2) De-nationalised as many businesses as she could3) Introduced a new wave of Neo-liberalism to the UK (if this sounds like a good thing, remember what Neo-liberalism was replacing: Social-democratism)4) Destroyed the mining industry5) Beat up the working class6) Made unemployment skyrocket

7) Tore apart trade unions8) Weakened Northern England and Scotland to support Southern and rural England9) Inadvertently brought War Criminal Tony Blair to power as well as Economy Crasher John Major10) Planned to destroy the NHS

Source? I think she specifically pointed out this was one business not getting privatised. Your whole list is kind of unweighty anyway. How about forcing every Brit to spend 200<£ for the Trident programme, while at the same time sticking it to the core disarment activists? Or being against any European unification? Or wasting lives shielding the Falklands and in the Gulf War?

I am being a Devil's advocate to some degree, but maybe this will spark some discussion.

Ox wrote

How would a woman who-

1) Didn't want the Berlin wall to fall

Arguably this was the correct policy for the U.K. to take, at least from the narrow perspective of national self-interest. Great Britain's longstanding (at least 3 century) policy has been to oppose any one power from dominating all of Europe. Allowing Germany to reunify would likely lead to Germany eventually dominating continental Europe, which is what is in fact is happening right now with the E.U.

Opposing the Berlin Wall from falling may seen like standing in the way of progress, but from the perspective of realpolitik, it is a reasonable position for the U.K. to take.

2) De-nationalised as many businesses as she could

3) Introduced a new wave of Neo-liberalism to the UK (if this sounds like a good thing, remember what Neo-liberalism was replacing: Social-democratism)

The Social-Democratic (to use your term) business model had broken down in the 1970s, with low productivity growth and high inflation. There were a myriad of caused for this, including inefficient state-owned industries, misallocation of capital by the government, and powerful unions which stifled innovation and forced pay raises. De-nationalization and the move to neo-liberalism was an effort to get inflation under control and have the economy grow again. To a large degree, unleashing the power of private enterprise has succeeded in increasing growth and improving living standards.

Really, it was a good thing for Thatcher to reform the economy. What is more questionable is the pace at which the reforms were instituted. Most of Europe moved away from centralized economies, countries which did it slower (e.g. Greece and even Italy) had more moribund growth. So it is hard to claim Thatcher's policies were (an abject) failure.

On the other hand, other European nations (the Scandinavian nations in particular) took a more measured pace to de-nationalization. Arguably, the outcomes in those countries, both measured in economic growth, but also in the quality of the society, is superior to that of the U.K. So, yes, her rabid de-nationalization was probably overdone.

4) Destroyed the mining industry

The U.K. mining industry was inefficient, uncompetitive against foreign imports and substitutes, and could only survive with government subsidies. Letting it die was likely the best policy. In any case, who wants to burn coal these days? It is a very dirty form of pollution.

This can not be laid at Margaret's feet. In the 1980's (and 1990's) unemployment rose in all industrialized nations. The chart you included of unemployment rate in the U.K. mirrors what was seen in the U.S., Canada, and most other western nations. Since the effect was seen broadly, it is hard to blame Thatcher for it (or are you saying Margaret's policies caused unemployment to rise in the U.S.?.

The spike in unemployment in 1981 (and again in 1990) was largely driven by the tightening of monetary policy by the central banks in the west. Paul Volker, chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve in the 1980s, switched the monetary policy such that the Fed targetted inflation (and the other central banks followed his lead). As inflation was high, the Fed raised interest rates until inflation dropped. High interest rates led to companies letting people go, hence the unemployment.

This monetary policy regime change has been an unabashed success in controlling inflation. However, this success has been achieved by raising unemployment whenever inflation is too high (and what is too high? Why do bankers get to decide?). Well, one measure the central banks have used is when wage increases get out of control -- the central banks call it a wage-price spiral, where wages are increased because the cost of living goes up, but the increased wages lead to businesses raising their prices, which then leads to another round of wage increases as the cost of living goes up. The central banks got this under control by raising interest rates and having gobs of people become unemployed, so those who were employed were content with just keeping their jobs instead of asking for raises.

In retrospect, it is unclear if the benefit of having stable, low inflation has been worth the cost of having most people's economic security threatened. But I think it is wrong to blame Margaret for the spike in unemployment in the 1980s.

As an aside, while the central banks like to point to the wage-price spiral as a driver of inflation in the 1970s, they consistently ignore two other important factors. First, in the early 1970s, Abe Fortas, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, has a very loose (too loose) monetary policy at the tacit behest of Richard Nixon (which is why they normally don't let politicians set monetary policy). This increased inflation and set the stage for the rest of the 1970s. But second, there was a giant oil shock in 1973 with the oil embargo. As western economies were hugely dependent upon oil those days, this sent a price shock through entire economy which took years (decades with the second oil spike in 1979) to resolve. This oil shock caused a lot of "inflation" (price rises at least) which were not related to monetary policy, and should not have been dealt with by tightening the monetary supply. But tell that to the bankers.

7) Tore apart trade unions

Not necessarily a bad thing. Trade unions, trade guilds, unions, professional associations of all kind reduce quality of service and stifle innovation. On the other hand, these organizations also help ensure a base quality of service and provide for employment security. A balance needs to be found. In the 1970s unions had too much power, and reform was needed.

On the other hand, Thatcher's rabid anti-unionism may have gone to far. But reform was a good thing.

I might as well finish the job.8) Weakened Northern England and Scotland to support Southern and rural England Prove it. 9) Inadvertently brought War Criminal Tony Blair to power as well as Economy Crasher John Major The key word here is 'inadvertently' 10) Planned to destroy the NHS Prove it.

Posts 1 - 29 of 29

Post a reply to this thread

Before posting, please proofread to ensure your post uses proper grammar and is free of spelling mistakes or typos.